Working Paper
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
Barbara van Koppen, Manita Raut, Alok Rajouria, Manohara Khadka,
Prachanda Pradhan, Raj K. GC, Luke Colavito, Corey O’Hara, Sanna-Leena Rautanen, Pallab Raj Nepal and Parikshit Kumar Shrestha
203
Working Papers
The publications in this series record the work and thinking of IWMI researchers, and knowledge that the Institute’s scientific management feels is worthy of documenting. This series will ensure that scientific data and other information gathered or prepared as a part of the research work of the Institute are recorded and referenced. Working Papers could include project reports, case studies, conference or workshop proceedings, discussion papers or reports on progress of research, country-specific research reports, monographs, etc. Working Papers may be copublished, by IWMI and partner organizations. Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators, we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI staff. The reports are published and distributed both in hard copy and electronically (www.iwmi.org) and where possible all data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports may be copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.
About IWMI
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is an international, research-for-development organization that works with governments, civil society and the private sector to solve water problems in developing countries and scale up solutions. Through partnership, IWMI combines research on the sustainable use of water and land resources, knowledge services and products with capacity strengthening, dialogue and policy analysis to support implementation of water management solutions for agriculture, ecosystems, climate change and inclusive economic growth. Headquartered in Colombo, Sri Lanka, IWMI is a CGIAR Research Center and leads the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). www.iwmi.org
IWMI Working Paper 203
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community- led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) P. O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
The authors:
Barbara van Koppen (PhD) is a Scientist Emerita at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa; Manita Raut was Senior Research Officer at IWMI, Kathmandu, Nepal, at the time this study was conducted.
She is currently a PhD candidate and John Allwright Fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; Alok Rajouria is a Social Policy Specialist. He was a Researcher at IWMI, Kathmandu Nepal, when the field study was conducted; Dr. Manohara Khadka is Country Representative – Nepal at IWMI, Kathmandu, Nepal; Dr. Prachanda Pradhan is founder and current patron of the Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust (FMIST), Nepal, representing FMIST in this paper; Dr. Raj K. GC is Adjunct Faculty at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, USA. He previously worked with both iDE Nepal and the Rural Village Water Resources Management Project (RVWRMP), Nepal, and conducted his PhD research on Multiple Use Water Services at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA; Luke Colavito is currently Senior Economist at iDE, and Corey O’Hara is Country Director of iDE Nepal, and they both represent iDE in this paper; Dr. (Ms.) Sanna-Leena Rautanen was previously Chief Technical Adviser in RVWRMP phases I, II and III, and in the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal (RWSSP-WN) phase II. She is currently Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Expert and Senior Manager at FCG Finnish Consulting Group Ltd. Helsinki, Finland; Pallab Raj Nepal is Management Information Systems (MIS) Specialist in RVWRMP, Nepal, conducting comparative economic cost-benefit analysis of multiple-use systems and standalone drinking water systems, which he also does for his PhD; and Parikshit Kumar Shrestha was previously a Technical Specialist in RVWRMP phases II and III (2011–2019), and is now Team Leader in Project Management and Quality Assurance Consultants (PMQAC) for the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-funded Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (Sector) Project (UWSSP) implemented by the Department of Water Supply and Sewerage Management (DWSSM), Nepal.
van Koppen, B.; Raut, M.; Rajouria, A.; Khadka, M.; Pradhan, P.; GC, R. K.; Colavito, L.; O’Hara, C.; Rautanen, S.-L.;
Nepal, P. R.; Shrestha, P. K. 2022. Gender equality and social inclusion in community-led multiple use water services in Nepal. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 29p. (IWMI Working Paper 203).
doi: https://doi.org/10.5337/2022.200
/ multiple use water services / gender equality / social inclusion / community involvement / water resources / water supply / supply chains / right to water / water availability / drinking water / domestic water / water, sanitation and hygiene / participatory approaches / decision making / governmental organizations / non-governmental organizations / households / women / livelihoods / vulnerability / water sharing / solar energy / food security / nexus / rural areas / water systems / infrastructure / irrigation / small scale systems / sustainability / benefit-cost ratio / financing / income / competition / Nepal /
ISSN 2012-5763 e-ISSN 2478-1134 ISBN 978-92-9090-933-0
Copyright © 2022, by IWMI. All rights reserved. IWMI encourages the use of its material provided that the organization is acknowledged and kept informed in all such instances.
Please send inquiries and comments to IWMI-Publications@cgiar.org
A free copy of this publication can be downloaded at:
https://www.iwmi.org/publications/iwmi-working-papers/
Acknowledgments
This Working Paper reflects the collaboration in innovating the Multiple Use water Services (MUS) approach in Nepal, by the Government of Nepal, Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust (FMIST), iDE, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Rural Village Water Resources Management Project (RVWRMP), Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal (RWSSP-WN) and many other development partners, also organized in the Nepal Multiple Use Water System (MUS) Network. This paper highlights the gender equality and social inclusion dimensions of MUS. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for the fieldwork component and editing of this paper provided by the Water for Women Fund, an initiative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) as part of the Australian Aid program.
Project
The fieldwork for this research was carried out under the project titled A gender perspective to understand and enhance the functionality of water supply systems: Lessons from Nepal (GP4WSF). This project is supported by the Water for Women Fund, which is the Australian government’s flagship Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) program. Find out more at waterforwomenfund.org
Collaborators
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust (FMIST), Nepal
iDE
Rural Village Water Resources Management Project (RVWRMP), Nepal
FCG Finnish Consulting Group, Finland
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal (RWSSP-WN)
IWMI - iv Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
Donors
Water for Women Fund
Australian Aid
This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For details
please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views expressed in
this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of
these organizations.
This publication has been funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views expressed in this publication are the authors alone and are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government and other organizations involved in the research project implementation.
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Summary vii
Introduction 1
The Constitutional Right to Water 1
This Study 1
Aims 1
Definitions 2
Methods 2
Structure of This Paper 2
Challenges in Conventional Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 3
Externally Financed WASH Infrastructure is Often Dysfunctional 3
Self Supply is Expanding 3
De Facto Multiple Uses 4
It Happens Anyhow 4
Responses within Single-use Sectors 4
Competition for Finite Water Resources is Increasing 5
Male Elite Capture in Polycentric Decision-making 6
Addressing the Challenges: Community-led Multiple Use Water Services 7
Features of Inclusive Community-led Multiple Use Water Services 7
Community-led MUS in Nepal 7
Participatory Planning, Design and Construction: Water Use Master Plan (WUMP) 7
From WASH to MUS 8
From Small-scale Irrigation to MUS 9
Solar MUS in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus 10
National Learning and Exchange 10
Community-led Sharing of Water Resources 11
Costs and Benefits of Community-led Multiple Use Water Services 12
Financial Benefit-Cost Ratio 12
Financing Modalities 13
Community-led Investment Processes and Support to Self Supply 13
Benefits 14
Less Domestic Chores and More Convenience, Hygiene and Health 14
More Food Security, Better Nutrition and Higher Incomes 15
Sustainable and Functional Infrastructure 16
Conclusions 17
References 18
IWMI - vi Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEC Agro Enterprise Centre
AEPC Alternative Energy Promotion Centre
BRACED Anukulan/Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters
CBO Community-based Organization
CEAPRED Center for Environmental and Agricultural Policy Research, Extension and Development CIUD Centre for Integrated Urban Development
CWN Concern Worldwide Nepal
DWSSM Department of Water Supply and Sewerage Management FMIST Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust
GEF Global Environment Facility
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development IWMI International Water Management Institute
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
KISAN Knowledge-based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal
LAPA Local Adaptation Plan of Action
Lpcd Liters per capita per day
MoWSS Ministry of Water Supply and Sanitation
MUS Multiple Use Water Services
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action
NEWAH Nepal Water for Health
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NITP Non-Conventional Irrigation Technology Project
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PV Photovoltaic
RERL Renewable Energy for Rural Livelihood
RVWRMP Rural Village Water Resources Management Project
RWSSP-WN Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal SAPPROS Nepal Support Activities for Poor Producers of Nepal
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SIMI Smallholder Irrigation Market Initiative UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development WARM-P Water Resources Management Project
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WEF Water-Energy-Food
WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies
WSUG Water Services User Group
WUA Water Users’ Association
WUMP Water Use Master Plan
Summary
The Constitution of Nepal 2015 enshrines everyone’s right of access to clean water for drinking and the right to food. The common operationalization of the right to water for drinking is providing access to infrastructure that brings water for drinking and other basic domestic uses near and at homesteads. Challenges to achieving this goal in rural areas include: low functionality of water systems; expansion of informal self supply for multiple uses; widespread de facto productive uses of water systems designed for domestic uses; growing competition for finite water resources; and male elite capture in polycentric decision-making. This paper traces how Nepali government and nongovernmental organizations in the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), irrigation and other sectors have joined forces since the early 2000s to address these challenges by innovating community-led multiple use water services (MUS). The present literature review of these processes and field research, supported by the Water for Women Fund, focuses on women in vulnerable households.
Overcoming sectoral silos, organizations support what is often seen as the sole responsibility of the WASH sector:
targeting infrastructure development to bring sufficient water near and at homesteads of those left behind.
Women’s priorities for using this water are respected and supported, which often includes productive uses, also at basic volumes. In line with decentralized federalism, inclusive community-led MUS planning processes build on vulnerable households’ self supply, commonly for multiple uses, and follow their priorities for localized incremental infrastructure improvements.
Further, community-led MUS builds on community- based arrangements for ‘sharing in’ and ‘sharing out’ the finite water resources in and under communities’ social territories, realizing the constitutional right to food and the Nepal Water Resources Act, 1992, prioritizing core minimum volumes of water for everyone’s domestic uses and many households’ irrigation. Evidence shows how the alleviation of domestic chores, women’s stronger control over food production for nutrition and income, and more sustainable infrastructure mutually reinforce each other in virtuous circles out of gendered poverty.
However, the main challenge remains the inclusion of women and vulnerable households in participatory processes.
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
Barbara van Koppen, Manita Raut, Alok Rajouria, Manohara Khadka, Prachanda Pradhan, Raj K. GC, Luke Colavito, Corey O’Hara, Sanna-Leena Rautanen, Pallab Raj Nepal and Parikshit Kumar Shrestha
Introduction
The Constitutional Right to Water
Nepal’s constitution enshrines everyone’s right of access to clean drinking water and sanitation (GoN 2015, Article 35[4]).1 This commitment by the government – as duty bearer to progressively realize this right – operationalizes Nepal’s signing of the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the human right to water and sanitation (UN 2010) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including Target 6.1 – by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all (UN 2015). According to MoWSS (2015) and DWSSM (2019), this commitment translates to reliable access to water at premises in quantities of at least 5 liters per capita per day (lpcd) for drinking and a total of 45 lpcd for all basic personal and food hygiene as a basic level water service (20 lpcd in drought-prone areas). This basic level water service is comparable with those of the World Health Organization (Howard et al. 2020).
Accessibility, affordability and reliability of water imply a right to both water infrastructure for storage and conveyance near or at premises, and a priority right in the allocation of the naturally available water resources (runoff, rivulets, streams, springs, wetlands, or shallow or deep groundwater sources) that flow into that water infrastructure.
The constitution also commits to a right to food2 (GoN 2015, Article 36). The duty of the state to provide
infrastructure to enable productive uses of water, whether near or at premises or in distant fields, or all these, has not been clearly operationalized. However, with regard to the allocation of naturally available water resources falling on fields, or flowing into infrastructure, the state’s commitment is unambiguous: water resources that enable realizing this right to food have a priority.
Both commitments of the Nepali government – to realize a right to water for domestic uses near or at premises, and a right to food – are reflected in the Water Resources Act of 1992 (GoN 1992). The Act governs the utilization of naturally available water resources. In the allocation of water resources, water for drinking and other domestic uses is given the highest priority. The second priority is for irrigation, followed by animal husbandry and
fisheries; hydroelectricity; cottage industry (e.g., water mill or grinder), industrial enterprises and mining uses;
navigation; recreational uses; and other uses (GoN 1992).
These two complementary policy commitments are vital for women in the many rural resource-poor households that are still ‘left behind’, especially in the poorest areas but also within heterogenous communities elsewhere. They still need to collect water from far, unsafe sources. Women and girls are disproportionately burdened with this daily drudgery.
They contribute nearly 84% of the total labor for households’
water provision (CBS 2020). When travelling long distances in search of water, women and girls risk facing rape and sexual assault (Pommells et al. 2018; Fisher 2006).
The constitution also commits to broader principles of equality, inclusion, justice and non-discrimination.
This further implies the narrowing of the gendered inequalities in technical knowledge and control over water infrastructure. When male kin share in the efforts to provide water for domestic uses, they tend to carry out technical maintenance work on the water system, as identified for 89% of the surveyed households in two wards in Nepal – Dailekh and Sarlahi (IWMI 2020). Also, local artisans, holding specialized hydrological and technical engineering knowledge, are primarily men.
The challenge is the realization of these rights at the intersection of current discrimination along gender, age, disability, caste, wealth and ethnicity lines (Leder et al.
2017; SNV and CBM Australia 2019). This paper focuses on emerging pathways to address these implementation challenges.
This Study Aims
This study in Nepal had two main objectives. First, to identify key problems faced by the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector in its efforts to realize the constitutional rights of all citizens to water and justice.
Second, to examine innovative alternatives that have proven, or are plausible, to address these problems.
1 Article 35(4): ‘Every citizen shall have the right of access to clean water and sanitation’ (GoN 2015). This paper focuses on the first part: access to water.
2 Article 36: (2) ‘Every citizen shall have the right to be safe from the state of being in danger of life from the scarcity of food’; and (3) ‘Every citizen shall have the right to food sovereignty in accordance with law’.
IWMI - 2 Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
The study identified the following five implementation challenges.
(1) Externally financed WASH infrastructure is often dysfunctional.
(2) Self supply is expanding. Partly in response to failing public infrastructure, there is an increase in water users constructing and installing their own
infrastructure for self supply, mostly by the relatively wealthier people.
(3) De facto multiple uses. Self supply is often for multiple purposes. Similarly, people use public schemes that are designed for domestic use for productive use as well, which may deprive some from accessing water even for basic domestic uses.
(4) Competition for finite water resources is increasing.
(5) Male elite capture in polycentric decision-making.
Last but not least, the most marginalized, in particular women, are still excluded from decision-making in their communities and in the newly established local government structures that develop and manage water infrastructure and mediate in conflicts.
The literature about responses to these challenges points to participatory water services that take communities’, especially women’s, multiple water needs, embedded in age-old community-based water tenure, as a starting point (Polak et al. 2004; Mikhail and Yoder 2008; Basnet and van Koppen 2011; Rautanen et al. 2014; GC et al.
2021a). This so-called ‘community-led multiple use water services (MUS)’ approach maintains a priority for everyone’s access to water at or near premises, leaving no one behind, but respects and supports women’s (and men’s) own priorities for any use of water available.
Definitions
Community-led MUS considers the context of an entire community. This typically includes self supply, in the sense of infrastructure that is largely or fully financed by community members, either as a subgroup or as individual households (Sutton and Butterworth 2021).
When community members in Nepal, and indeed worldwide, design, finance, construct, operate and maintain infrastructure for self supply at or near premises, they use water for domestic purposes and also for productive uses, e.g., poultry or livestock; irrigation of crops, vegetables or trees; crafts; brickmaking; and
small-scale enterprises; and at larger scales, also fisheries; milling; hydropower; biogas; or ceremonial uses. Even infrastructure that supplies water to isolated, distant fields or other sites of use, such as rivers or cattle dams in grazing areas, can be multipurpose. Moreover, rural communities typically access a combination of two or more surface water and/or groundwater sources within that community’s socially defined territory. Combinations of water sources also provide resilience to the natural or human-induced variability in water availability. In line with global definitions (FAO 2020), we call the ways in which community members relate to each other and external parties with regard to water: ‘community-based (or customary) water tenure’.
Methods
Two sets of data sources inform our analysis. The first set of data consists of a review of literature since the late 1990s, when policy makers, donors, international and national nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and research organizations innovated community-led MUS and organized in a Nepal MUS Network.3 The second set of data is derived from field research conducted in selected wards in two districts. One district was Dailekh (in Ward 8 of Gurans Rural Municipality) in Nepal’s middle hills where springs, rivers and rivulets are the main water sources. The other district was Sarlahi (in Ward 6 of Chandranagar Rural Municipality) in the Terai where groundwater is the main water source.
We conducted household surveys, participatory rapid assessments, transect walks and focus group discussions with single and mixed gender groups, including
disadvantaged castes and ethnicities, and interviews with resource persons. This was followed-up by phone interviews during the Covid-19 pandemic. Participatory videos were also made (IWMI 2021a).
Structure of This Paper
In the following section, we start with a presentation of the five above-mentioned challenges to achieving universal access to water for drinking and other domestic uses. The section Addressing the Challenges: Community- led Multiple Use Water Services explores how the Nepali government institutions, supported by international development partners, innovated responses to these challenges by pilot testing and upscaling community-led MUS. A cost-benefit analysis of this new service model is presented in the section Costs and Benefits of Community- led Multiple Use Water Services, before conclusions are drawn.
3 https://nepalmusnetwork.wordpress.com
Externally Financed WASH Infrastructure is Often Dysfunctional
In Nepal, households with access to basic water services increased from 46% in 1990 to 90% in 2016 (GoN and UNICEF 2018). However, as elsewhere in low-income rural areas across the world, the functionality of water systems designed and financed by external support agencies is low (Moriarty et al. 2013). DWSSM (2019) also noted this high coverage rate of basic water services (88%).
However, at any given time, only 28% of the existing rural water supply schemes are fully functional in terms of providing sufficient quantities of water, of an acceptable quality, and with adequate hours of supply (DWSSM 2019). Moreover, 48% of the total schemes require minor and major repairs (DWSSM 2019). In terms of water quality, based on standards, only 19% had access to safe water by 2019 (CBS 2020).
Besides the usual wear and tear and nature’s floods and landslides, a contributing factor to dilapidated water infrastructure is the top-down planning and design by external agencies, which may well include engineers with an urban or high-caste background who are not familiar with rural settings (Udas 2006; Udas and Zwarteveen 2010). Future water users are only mobilized after ‘hand over’ of the infrastructure, and are supposedly in charge of all operation and maintenance (O&M). This includes tariff collection, which is notoriously difficult among closely-knit communities. Moreover, externally designed water systems may be too expensive compared to available alternatives (Whittington et al. 2009).
Formal Water Services User Groups (WSUG) that were established when the infrastructure was planned may dissolve immediately after construction, as identified in two of the seven WSUGs in Ward 8, Dailekh. However, after taking over the infrastructure, households informally came together and took charge of (part of) the water supply systems. Such activities were often initiated by the wealthier households (Rajouria et al. Forthcoming). In Nepal, this widely observed fate of externally supported water infrastructure – also for irrigation schemes for that matter – is compounded by threats of extreme natural events, including floods, landslides, windstorms, hailstorms, fires, earthquakes and, with increasing temperatures due to climate change, the melting of glaciers (Sharma et al. 2021). Each of the following challenges further contributes to the low functionality of externally supported water infrastructure.
Self Supply is Expanding
In the face of low functionality and frequent disruptions of externally financed water systems, or a lack of water in the tail ends, or the hassle, if not unaffordability, of collective O&M, people have little or no choice but to access water from their own sources, either individually
or as self-organized subgroups. Aspirations increase as well, and supply chains of small-scale technologies and improved energy sources become more available. Those who can afford these technologies increasingly invest their own money in infrastructure for self supply, e.g., piped gravity infrastructure or manual or motorized groundwater pumps. Remittances received from migrants further enable such investments. In this way, the relatively more powerful and better-off 10 households, out of the 80 households in a Dailekh Dalit village, mobilized their stronger social networks and collectively installed a private pipeline that supplies water only for them (Raut and Rajouria 2020;
Raut et al. Forthcoming). Even when the costs are not prohibitive, a key problem for women is their limited technical know-how of installing connections and the lack of a social network for mobilizing the required human resources, as identified by Raut and Rajouria (2020) and IWMI (2021b).
Self supply by individuals or subgroups has existed since time immemorial, not only to provide water to homesteads and residential areas but also to fields. Collective systems for self supply are well recognized in Nepal’s irrigation sector. Since the 1980s, studies in both the mid-hills and Terai confirmed the features of widespread investments in infrastructure made by communities or individuals for self supply for irrigation (Ostrom 2005; Pradhan 2010; FMIST n.d.). These water systems are often also used for non- irrigation purposes. For example, small mountain systems not only channelled water to irrigation fields but also to residential areas for domestic uses. Water-powered grain milling has been practiced for thousands of years (Yoder 1983). Farmer-led irrigation by individual households is also expanding in Nepal (Khadka et al. 2021).
Not confined to single-use mindsets of administrative silos of either domestic uses, or irrigation, or livestock, rural communities have always seen water as a resource for their multifaceted agrarian livelihoods. Moreover, households access multiple water sources, even at the same site, to accommodate for fluctuations in water availability. Everyone needs at least some water for domestic uses. Water for human and livestock drinking, and most domestic uses is needed on a daily basis, or sometimes less regularly, for example, for laundry. Productive water uses can be more seasonal or incidental, and only part of the community might engage in a particular productive activity. Self supply infrastructure, whether individual or communal, is mostly multipurpose, especially around homesteads, and steadily improves for those who can afford such infrastructure. Also, In Sarlahi, groundwater discharged from a hand pump was not only used for bathing and washing clothes, but also for cultivation and livestock watering (Raut and Rajouria 2020). Where the costs of transporting water are sufficiently low and the affordability for clients is sufficiently high, water vendors initiate informal water businesses.
Challenges in Conventional Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
IWMI - 4 Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
In communities’ moral economies with social safety nets, water from private manual or motorized pumps is often shared with less fortunate neighbors. However, asking for water can be troublesome. Research highlights how it becomes difficult to fetch water from private hand pumps within the compounds of the neighbor when the gates of the neighbor’s premises are locked at night. In such cases, households still resort to community ponds to meet water needs (IWMI 2021a, 2021b). The most marginalized households that have no one to ask, always have to walk to distant natural surface streams or springs, or communal ponds.
In many situations, self supply or informal water purchasing contributes to achieving the constitutional right of access to water for domestic uses, even at no cost to the taxpayer. However, in contrast to the recognition and support to farmer-managed irrigation systems in Nepal, the WASH sector is hesitant about self supply.
The quality of water for drinking may be suboptimal.
Also, self supply for domestic uses may compete with infrastructure designed and financed by the government or other external support agencies, if the availability of alternatives reduces incentives to maintain expensive externally financed systems. Also, self supply often widens relative inequalities for those without the ability to invest in self supply, or without willing neighbors who can share water or affordable water vendors carrying out informal businesses. Yet, if the government proactively prohibits self supply for domestic uses that contributes to realizing constitutional rights, it would infringe on citizens’ rights.
This puts the question in even bolder relief: how can external support agencies reach those left behind who lack affordable alternatives?
De Facto Multiple Uses It Happens Anyhow
Although the focus of the human right to water is on drinking and other domestic uses, the reality is different.
Externally financed infrastructure designed for drinking and other domestic uses is used to meet multiple needs, even at the minimum standard level of 45 lpcd.
Apparently, people’s priority uses differ from those of the designers. GC et al. (2019) identified that over 90% of users of collective water systems designed for domestic uses, in reality, also use them for productive uses. Some productive uses, such as livestock watering or horticulture, are common among the large majority, while a few households may specialize in other productive uses.
Productive uses depend on local conditions.
The widespread, notorious redesign (or vandalism) of water systems may aim at such productive uses.
In Dailekh, for example, piped water constructed for domestic uses is redesigned to enable irrigated homestead cultivation in the dry season (Raut and Rajouria 2020). In Badakanda, all 65 households wanted to grow vegetables, so they brought the public
community taps designed for domestic uses closer to their homesteads for that purpose (Bohara et al. 2013).
Significantly, such productive uses can already take place at service levels below 45 lpcd. In the Malewa Basne village, for example, the total volumes of water were still below 45 lpcd, but one-third of all water at homesteads was used for livestock watering and irrigation (Khawas and Mikhail 2008). People prioritized these productive uses over ‘luxury’ domestic uses’
such as daily bathing or weekly laundry, which can be done less regularly and even elsewhere. Community ponds are also typically used for domestic (washing and bathing), productive (fishery, livestock watering) or religious uses.
A study of 200 households in 10 water supply systems, conducted by GC et al. (2019), in Kaski, Syangja and Palpa districts in the western mid-hills region of Nepal showed that most households were using a mean of 34.2 lpcd for domestic use. GC et al. (2019) estimated that the median water use for productive activities in water systems designed for domestic uses was 33 lpcd. For systems designed for multiple uses (as elaborated below), this was 37 lpcd, so not significantly different. In both cases, these productive uses by households did not compromise their domestic uses (mean of 34.2 lpcd). Remarkably, this was less than the designed 45 lpcd.
However, water volumes needed for productive uses can be considerably higher than that needed for domestic uses, depending on the types of productive activities and access to water. Moreover, as only some of the households adopt certain productive uses, there is a risk of inequalities in water uses widening. Within collective water infrastructure, productive uses may in some way deprive some households from accessing water even for basic domestic uses. This real risk for tail end users is illustrated as follows:
My house is situated downstream and it is very difficult to access water because people upstream cut pipes to water their crops. Sometimes, they do it at night which makes it difficult to identify the culprit.
Even if they are identified, it is difficult to hold them responsible because most people living upstream do this themselves (pers. comm. tail end user, November 14, 2019).
Responses within Single-use Sectors
Locked within administrative single-use silos, external support agencies can only try to prohibit water uses beyond their respective mandates. The WASH sector would categorically prohibit their systems from being used for any productive uses, hoping this will lead to equal sharing of at least the basic minimum level of water among everyone. The threshold of 45 lpcd (basic level) becomes an upper ceiling instead of a minimum amount.
However, such rule setting is often in vain as people pursue their own priorities.
Another argument against using systems designed for domestic uses for productive uses is that it is wasteful, if clean, safely managed or even treated water of drinking water quality is used for productive purposes, especially if water of a lesser quality is sufficient for such activities. However, this overlooks that more water at premises is often more effective for health and hygiene than very small quantities of high-quality water (Sutton and Butterworth 2021). Moreover, most other domestic uses excluding drinking and cooking can also do with water of a lesser quality. High-quality water is only required for the 5 lpcd needed for drinking in most situations (Howard et al. 2020). Expensive treatment of all water, for example, for cleaning floors or laundry, would even be a waste of scarce resources. Water from springs and mountainous streams or groundwater may already be safe in some localities. However, in other localities, this may not be the case. When groundwater is locally polluted by arsenic, as in the Terai, alternative surface water sources or water from safe locations elsewhere are indispensable for safe drinking (but not necessarily for most other domestic uses).
Concerns about the quality of water for drinking also play a role in the irrigation sector, but the other way around.
These concerns discourage irrigation professionals from even just reporting on the – usually widespread – domestic uses of ‘their irrigation’ systems, for example, for bathing and laundry (Basnet and van Koppen 2011). Engineers in the public sector are held responsible for complying with certain standards, whether they are realistic or not. As long as they adhere to these accepted standards, they cannot be blamed. Reporting on domestic uses could be seen as accepting the responsibility for people drinking unsafe water. If they report on domestic uses or choose unorthodox solutions, and people are affected by drinking unsafe water or using it for other domestic needs, the engineer and the project will have to take the blame (Yoder 1983). However, this ignores that ‘irrigation’ water that is used for some other domestic uses except drinking (handwashing; house, yard and livestock shed cleaning;
laundry; and bathing) contributes to hygiene and health, and alleviates domestic chores.
Moreover, by staying within sectoral boundaries, the irrigation sector can leave all responsibilities to meeting the constitutional right of access to water for drinking and other domestic uses to the WASH sector. Irrigation professionals can ignore competition between everyone’s domestic uses and the productive uses of a smaller or larger proportion of the community. The irrigation sector may even be biased towards those with larger irrigated plots, while considering production at homesteads as just ‘kitchen gardens’, supposedly for self consumption only, ignoring the sale of produce to gain income. Water used to realize everyone’s right to food falls through the sectoral tracks. In this way, multifaceted water-dependent livelihoods and intrinsic inequalities in domestic and even more in productive water uses are ignored. Equality and justice in productive water uses can start at everyone’s homestead as the most equitable core minimum. Even the poor and landless have homesteads.
The foregoing inequalities in water uses are valid not only for sharing water within a collective system, but also for sharing the naturally available water resources that flow into infrastructure. For this sharing of water resources, we have to move up from a water system to the community scale with its multiple water sources and many types of infrastructure, depending on highly localized climate, geo-hydrology, and socioeconomic features. Where water resources are shared at higher levels between communities, or watersheds or even transboundary basins, with even more types of infrastructure, water resource allocation among many more uses and users is at stake.
Competition for Finite Water Resources is Increasing
The constitutional right of access to water for domestic uses implies a right to infrastructure for storage and conveyance of water so that it is increasingly available year round near premises, but preferably in yards or even inside dwellings. This constitutional right is not just a right to walk long distances to access and use water from a natural source. However, infrastructure alone is insufficient; natural surface water or groundwater resources must flow into storage and conveyance infrastructure. Water resources passing through or under the territories of a community are typically manifest as multiple scattered sources, which vary according to weather and climate patterns. These resources are mostly limited in the dry season or during dry spells. This implies a fourth major challenge to meet everyone’s constitutional right of access to water: to not only have functioning infrastructure but also sufficient water resources flowing into that infrastructure. When demand is higher than natural availability, water resources need to be ‘shared in’ within communities, and ‘shared out’ with neighboring communities up to watershed level and, as relevant, even inter-basin transfers.
The need to share limited water resources is increasing.
The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal (RWSSP-WN) conducted a study between 2004 and 2014 in Tanahun district of nearly 2,400 water sources.
The study showed a 50% reduction in average yield of point sources (springs) over 10 years (Shrestha 2016).
This resource scarcity was also identified by Clement et al. (2015): the major factor threatening the resilience and sustainability of the 16 MUS studied is the security of the water resource, with most of the systems already facing decreases in water flows. In almost one-third of the cases, users reported having an insecure source of water throughout the year (Clement et al. 2015).
Competition for water from springs and streams, and groundwater is increasing both within and between rural communities. Within rural communities, populations expand, in spite of out-migration and urbanization;
people’s aspirations increase; affordable technologies to abstract water become more available; remittances
IWMI - 6 Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
received from migrants are available; and markets evolve.
Water resources have to be shared, first in the dry season and gradually during the other seasons as well. This sharing is not equitable. Power relations and notions of first in time, first in right favor wealthier households that are the first to invest in year-round storage or tap water from abundant aquifers for self supply. These options may be too expensive or otherwise unfeasible, or just too late, for the majority of people. Water resources are not only to be ‘shared within’ communities, but also increasingly
‘shared out’ with neighboring communities or powerful third parties. Water is increasingly diverted out of rural areas to the latter’s large-scale infrastructure to meet urban water needs, hydropower and other national or transboundary uses.
Male Elite Capture in Polycentric Decision-making
The fifth challenge in realizing the constitutional right of access to water for drinking and other domestic uses lies in communities’ internal and external social, economic and political decision-making patterns in both infrastructure development and sharing of water resources. Hierarchies are reproduced, with men of advantaged castes often occupying the most powerful positions. Discriminatory norms and patriarchal practices continue. These include women’s disproportionate unpaid domestic labor burdens, dowry, child marriage, mobility restriction for girls and women, or ‘chaupadi’, which forces women and girls in some areas to live in a hut outside the home during menstruation, often without access to taps or toilets (White and Haapala 2019). More powerful, well-informed and outspoken men with influential networks can dominate in leadership positions of water user groups.
If they participate in O&M, funds may be embezzled, with communities rarely acting against such action and holding the offenders accountable.
Inequalities in decision-making are also reproduced at the interface between communities, the government and other external agencies from the village level to ward, rural municipality (gaupalika) or urban municipality (nagarapalika), provincial and national levels. These tiers in government decision-making are being restructured under the constitution’s devolution of roles and powers to local governments as the frontline actors to develop
and implement policies and programs for water services at the local level (White and Haapala 2019; Khadka et al.
2021). The constitution includes provisions for proportional representation of women in all the state agencies (GoN 2015, Article 38), including their 33% representation in federal (GoN 2015, Article 84[8]) and provincial (GoN 2015, Article 176[9]) assemblies and 40% in the municipal assembly [GoN 2015, Article 222[3]], and at least one-third of women in water users’ associations (WUAs) (NLC 2000).
Thus, federalism opens up opportunities for bottom-up, inclusive and transformative WASH outcomes (Khadka et al. 2021; White and Haapala 2019; Clement et al.
2019). However, even when women and minority groups participate in decision-making bodies, this participation is still often tokenistic, amidst the contested interests and powers within communities, between communities and the government, and among government officials (Goodrich et al. 2017; White and Haapala 2019).
A limited budget is one of the challenges to implementing inclusive water planning. Despite the fiscal decentralization, only 1% of the total WASH budget currently goes to local levels, compared to 83%
and 16% for federal and provincial levels, respectively (WaterAid 2018). Moreover, local chairpersons, elected leaders, private sector members, and administrative and engineering staff tend to be all men, often with strong social networks among themselves, but hardly with women, Dalits or minorities. Many men do not support women members and even silence them. Dalit women representatives in wards in Sarlahi confirmed how they feel ignored: they are not informed, not aware, and let alone included in decision-making, they may even be excluded from meetings as only the Nepali language is spoken instead of local languages (Khadka et al. In prep.).
They may also be unaware of the annual WASH budget of their wards, while male ward chairpersons interviewed had this information (Khadka et al. In prep.). Even worse, rural municipalities may exclude any community representative, as found in Gurans, where the rural municipality decided to form and work through their own water and sanitation working group independent of the community WSUGs (Rajouria et al. Forthcoming).
In sum, all the above-mentioned challenges imply a long road to realizing everyone’s constitutional right of access to clean water. The following evidence of community-led MUS near or at homesteads in Nepal shows pathways to progress in achieving this constitutional right.
Features of Inclusive Community-led Multiple Use Water Services
In response to all the above-mentioned challenges, governmental and nongovernmental support agencies in Nepal innovated community-led multiple use water services (MUS) (Panika Bahu Udesya Upyog in Nepali) during the past two decades. The WASH sector joined forces with the small-scale irrigation sector for rural water infrastructure development and water resource allocation.
Sectoral expertise in other domains was unlocked from their silos. Community-led MUS that emerged as a result can be summarized as follows.
For water infrastructure development and equitable sharing of finite water resources, the WASH, irrigation and other sectors mutually support each other in the following:
• Realize the constitutional right of access to water near or at homesteads, leaving no one behind, by developing infrastructure and prioritizing water resource allocation that provides a core minimum of water volumes (e.g., a standard of at least 45 lpcd, near or at homesteads), and by respecting communities’ own priorities in the use of this water for multifaceted basic livelihoods – as happens anyhow.
• Conduct inclusive and participatory planning, design and construction processes that are anchored in communities’ age-old local, often informal, norms and practices that shape the relations among community members with regard to water – also called community-based or customary water tenure (FAO 2020).
• Follow marginalized women’s priorities in planning and designing how to achieve core minimum water service levels for all. Once that is achieved, as feasible in local conditions, promote equitable ‘climbing of the water ladder’ to gradually meet higher domestic and productive water needs, and requirements for homesteads, fields and other sites of use.
• In this participatory process: leverage and support communities’ five types of capital (physical, financial, technical, institutional and human) for self supply that contribute to achieving the constitutional rights and higher-level national goals. In certain contexts,
‘supported self supply’, which already happens in farmer-managed irrigation systems, can also be expanded to the WASH sector as a cross-sectoral alternative or complementary interim or permanent water services model.
Other expertise excluding the foregoing expertise on infrastructure and water resources is unlocked from their silos. As water is only one input for our well-being, the WASH, irrigation and other sectors widely provide their sectoral expertise to ensure that a particular domestic or productive water use leads to ultimate well-being, especially among the most vulnerable. This includes the following:
• Ensure, in a cost-effective manner, that at least 5 lpcd of water is safe for drinking, and provide capacity building for hygiene (WASH).
• Improve input supply chains, agronomy training, and market development for irrigation at homesteads or fields (irrigation sector).
The innovation process in which community-led MUS gradually evolved is explained below.
Community-led MUS in Nepal
Participatory Planning, Design and Construction:
Water Use Master Plan (WUMP)
In 1998, the Water Resources Management Project (WARM-P) of Helvetas developed the Water Use Master Plan (WUMP). This planning tool has 17 activities grouped into five steps (Bhatta and Subedi 2016) and is to be implemented using a bottom-up approach, at the interface between communities and the government with other support agencies. The first step of WUMP involves creating a holistic inventory of the spatial and topographical layout of a community with its diverse water sources, multiple uses and all infrastructure. This step is followed by a participatory design and prioritization of incremental improvements to infrastructure and transparent budgeting, all in Nepali language. In these early phases of the project, (potential) conflicts are anticipated and addressed in a timely manner.
Communities mobilize contributions in cash and in kind for the construction of infrastructure, and are also empowered to procure and recruit artisans. Users also operate and maintain the system and carry out small repairs.
In the early 2000s, iDE, coming from the irrigation sector, adopted a similar participatory planning process that starts with creating an inventory of all water sources and existing uses in the area (Mikhail and Yoder 2008; Sharma et al. 2016).
WUMP became well known in Nepal and has increasingly been applied. Through the use of WUMP, de facto multiple uses became visible in the WASH sector. Support agencies not only accepted such multiple uses, but even began to see this as ‘an opportunity not to be missed’: by providing more water they not only meet domestic uses, but also promote productive uses and reuses through drainage water.
Addressing the Challenges: Community-led Multiple Use Water Services
IWMI - 8 Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
In 2015, the Ministry of Water Supply and Sanitation (MoWSS) included WUMPs in its Nepal Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Development Plan (2016- 2030)4 (MoWSS 2015). Officials in the Department of Water Supply and Sewerage Management (DWSSM) started to encourage the implementation of WUMP and MUS wherever water resources are sufficiently available, and accept how livestock watering and homestead gardening can be included in rural definitions of ‘domestic’ uses. In urban areas where livelihoods are less diversified, MUS is less applicable and known.
From WASH to MUS
The Rural Village Water Resources Management Project (RVWRMP) adopted WUMP from the onset in the poor Middle and Far Western Nepal (Sudurpashchim and Karnali provinces), supported by the governments of Nepal and Finland, and the European Union. This included capacity development, especially of women, to shape these processes and public audits. Initially, RVWRMP focused on piped gravity systems for domestic needs of at least 45 lpcd. Realizing the many unmet water needs in this poverty-stricken region, RVWRMP started to proactively identify whether more water resources were available for livestock watering and irrigation at homesteads. Moving from accepting de facto productive uses, RVWRMP started to plan for locally relevant multipurpose infrastructure. They set as an initial target that 10% of its water systems should be MUS.
This percentage steadily grew to 38% of a total of 629 water systems, benefitting well over 125,000 people by 2019. The project implemented systems with multiple productive uses, such as field irrigation combined with micro-hydropower or with grain mills.
RWSSP-WN (Gandaki and Lumbini provinces), also supported by the Finnish government, promoted MUS where water resources were sufficiently available.
The project found that longer-term planning of water development and ranking communities’ priorities over a five-year period appeared to be effective in reducing the ad hoc nature of heavily lobbied and politically motivated project selection (Rautanen et al. 2014).
RWSSP-WN observed that there was a declining trend in springs in Nepal and, therefore, recommended to utilize multiple solutions such as storing source overflow and using multiple sources to ensure reliable and sufficient water quantities throughout the year. There is more to be learned about the integrated planning concept of multiple sources for multiple uses, as in many places, one source is just not sufficient or not available all year round.
Both RVWRMP and RWSSP-WN worked through the Municipality WASH Units (sections within the municipal structure, under the leadership of the local governments and their elected bodies). The newly restructured context created new opportunities and gave a new sense of local ownership while reaching out services to everyone within the municipal borders. The Municipality WASH Units were able to support users’ committees and cooperatives for extensions, service-level improvements, rehabilitation, continued capacity building and funding, bioengineering and recharge, and for retrofitting multiple use water systems into earlier systems while improving their functionality, especially where the users could not raise sufficient funds from their own sources, or where there was a need for engineering or other technical support and capacity building.
The step-by-step participatory approach led to a variety of localized choices for a community’s next incremental improvement in gaining access to water. For example, communities were found to prioritize the construction of a new system, or the rehabilitation or upgrading of existing
‘domestic’ water supply systems. Another option was where a former system designed for domestic uses was rehabilitated to provide water to fields for irrigation, while a new system provided water to homesteads.
A survey conducted by RVWRMP among 22 district officials in the WASH sector in West Nepal confirmed that more than four-fifth of the officials were well aware of de facto multiple uses: ‘productive uses happen anyhow’.
The same percentage agreed that, therefore, multiple use water systems are the ‘natural option’ (Rautanen 2016). However, half of the staff highlighted obstacles to implementing MUS because of the conventional administrative silos of support agencies: budget headings or earmarks mentioned ‘domestic uses’ only, ignoring multiple uses. Also, there appeared to be a lack of knowledge about MUS and skilled staff to implement designs and guide communities (Rautanen 2016).
International WASH NGOs such as WaterAid and national NGOs (e.g., Nepal Water for Health [NEWAH]) moved to the concept of MUS at higher service levels. Practical Action, RAIN Foundation, and other national and international NGOs developed and applied appropriate small-scale technologies for MUS, especially for storage, such as Thai jars or soil ferro cement water retention ponds for individual households (Bhatta and Shrestha 2016). On the other hand, in some areas, water resources were found to be too limited and water supplies could only be provided for 2 hours per day. In such cases, the community and
4 “Water Use Master Plan (WUMP): In recent years, an effective planning tool to assist communities and planners in better understanding the water situation and multiple uses of water (e.g., domestic uses and livelihoods) in a locality, be it a village or a watershed across several local administrative units, for the equitable and sustainable use of water sources is being practiced in the western and far western Nepal. The approach is being used to make an inventory of water sources and together agree on their use at local level. The approach is seen effective in promoting local solutions with flexibility by acknowledging the local situation. The key lesson learned from the practice of the approach is that local institutions with adequate authority in planning and implementation of water resources at local levels are keys to sustainable conservation of small water sources. Also that, the more local the institution, the more effective is local water governance. The WUMP serves as the ‘Mini Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) or Basin Plan’ and is expected to be an effective planning tool for raising water security for human use, livelihood and economic development and watershed management. A guideline document will be developed based on good practice and experiences gathered in water use planning at local levels over the years. The approach will be gradually applied in all local level water resources planning” (MoWSS 2015, 80–81).
NEWAH prioritize domestic uses, prohibiting productive uses.
From Small-scale Irrigation to MUS
In the small-scale irrigation sector, irrigation professionals typically look for and find water sources that are well beyond 45 lpcd. Technically, the standard communal piped gravity system implemented in the WASH sector in the mid-hills appeared to be a highly water-efficient technology to cultivate vegetables and other high-value off-season crops year round, or for livestock watering and small-scale enterprises. Compared to irrigation canals, piped water supplies open up new land, in particular unleveled upland often around homesteads (bari). Unlike irrigation canals, pipes overcome undulations and do not require the arduous land leveling that the distant irrigated lowland (khet) plots for irrigated rice and other cereals require. Piped water supplies are also more reliable in the dry season. Water distribution between head and tail enders can be better managed. Soil erosion and risks of flooding at sensitive sites are also less. Proper drainage enables wastewater reuse for irrigation (Lohani 2016).
In the early 2000s, iDE in the Smallholder Irrigation Market Initiative (SIMI) project championed two innovations (technical and income generation) in collaboration with the Nepali NGO Support Activities for Poor Producers of Nepal (SAPPROS Nepal) and Winrock International, supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The first technical MUS ‘innovation’
started by respecting the de facto productive uses in the WASH sector’s prototype and, as much as possible, increase the discharge at low incremental costs, while maintaining the priority for domestic uses. After all, each farmer is also a domestic water user. Taking 45 lpcd for domestic uses, design criteria added another 40-120 lpcd.
Initially, these systems were called ‘hybrid’ systems (Polak et al. 2004). Joining the global move in the mid-2000s to call these systems ‘MUS’ (van Koppen et al. 2006;
Renwick 2007), iDE also changed the name of these piped designs to MUS, both for its gravity systems and water- lifting systems. Labor- and water-saving technologies such as drip irrigation are also promoted. Depending on communities’ local spatial layout, the priority for domestic uses at everyone’s homesteads can be hardwired by using two tanks, each with its own distribution lines, or a ‘two-line system’. The first tank is used to supply all homesteads, and only the overflow of the first tank to the second tank is piped to provide water to fields. In one-line systems, institutional sharing arrangements ensure the prioritization of core minimum water volumes for all before the few larger-scale users can take more water.
Whereas everyone’s domestic uses are the general priority, there are local exceptions. Pant et al. (2006) found a case in which domestic uses were curtailed to enable irrigation.
During lean seasons, farmers enforced a time allocation (2-3 hours daily) for accessing drinking water to save water for irrigation. Domestic uses requiring more water,
including bathing, had to be carried out in the nearby streams.
By 2019, iDE had implemented 502 MUS (including 31 solar MUS) for 82,609 people in 32 of Nepal’s 77 districts. iDE mobilized external support from – in this order – UKAid, USAID, Canada, European Union, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Food Programme, Lottery, Asian Development Bank, and 11 other development partners, and the Government of Nepal.
The second innovation by iDE was to target irrigation at homesteads or small fields for income generation, through agronomic training in crop calendars for the cultivation of vegetables or other high-value crops; development of supply chains for seeds, fertilizers, integrated pest management and other inputs; and greenhouses. Nutrition education, as implemented by iDE under the Anukulan/
Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) project, amplifies the benefits of food production for own consumption. Moreover, in Nepal, where only 13% of agricultural produce is marketed, iDE started facilitating collection centers for marketing to improve food security, nutrition and incomes all at the same time (Polak et al. 2004). Accompanying training in marketing skills and forging market linkages help to increase incomes, and become incentives to increase productivity. Members of the WUA of the MUS become the
‘last-mile’ collectors or ‘community business facilitators’
to collect and store produce to achieve the bulk required to better attract external traders. Challenge funds and insurances are set up to encourage businesses to enter these underserved markets. Collection centers can also evolve into cooperatives that provide the wider range of services to their members: marketing, detailed crop calendars, technical support, inputs, credit, linkage to government services, and advocacy. This support to the irrigation of homesteads and small plots is equally relevant elsewhere in Nepal (GC et al. 2021a) and increasingly adopted.
RVWRMP took up similar livelihood components in its third phase. These and other projects also develop saving groups such as Village Savings and Loan Associations.
The interest gained from keeping money in a box with three locks can be loaned to members or used to pay the operator and finance system repairs, as done by the NGO Samjhauta (‘Agreement’) (Jha 2016). The various group activities mutually reinforce cohesion, performance and, hence, system sustainability.
Other government and nongovernmental support
agencies with productive water uses as an entry point also expanded their MUS systems. SAPPROS estimates that it has implemented a total of 1,600 MUS in collaboration with iDE and through other consortiums. Other partners of iDE and MUS implementers include Agro Enterprise Centre (AEC), Center for Environmental and Agricultural Policy Research, Extension and Development (CEAPRED), Concern Worldwide Nepal (CWN), Centre for Integrated
IWMI - 10 Working Paper 203 - Gender Equality and Social Inclusion in Community-led Multiple Use Water Services in Nepal
Urban Development (CIUD), and Renewable World for solar MUS (as explained in the section Solar MUS in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus).
Winrock International continued as a partner in the USAID-funded Knowledge-based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal (KISAN) project. In the first phase from 2013 to 2017 (KISAN-I), the project constructed 16 multiple use water systems. The second phase (KISAN II) focuses on promoting technologies of micro-irrigation and shallow tube wells, and on canal rehabilitation of 150 existing irrigation systems. It also experiments with fertigation through drip irrigation with fertilizer.
Last but not least, from the earliest phases of the project, and as the first government agency supporting MUS, the then Department of Irrigation, through its Non- Conventional Irrigation Technology Project (NITP) unit, supported iDE’s piped gravity systems for multiple uses.
This unit promotes small-scale irrigation technologies such as sprinkler, drip, treadle pumps, rainwater
harvesting, and piped systems. In line with the integration of MUS in the general irrigation policy of 2014, the current Department of Water Resources and Irrigation is mandated to develop water infrastructure to provide irrigation water to farmlands. Farmers are not restricted from using the water for other purposes such as drinking, washing and cattle raising.
Solar MUS in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus
Solar energy, which plays an increasingly important role in off-grid electrification of rural Nepal, further boosts MUS in a water-energy-food (WEF) nexus. In the decade since 2009, the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules has dropped by 80%, which has made the life cycle cost of solar power cheaper than diesel. This enables MUS and even combinations of water and energy sources. SAPPROS develops such integrated systems that generate electricity to provide water for domestic uses and irrigation, and other energy uses.
In 2012, Renewable World and iDE, supported by the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) and co- financers, introduced solar panels to pump water from surface water sources in deep valleys up to high elevation reservoirs for reticulation by gravity. A community- centered model ensured participation and contributions from the community, which were complemented in each project site with co-funding from locally available grants and subsidies.5
AEPC, a government agency in the renewable energy sector under the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation, also provides subsidies to other organizations installing MUS. An example is the Renewable Energy for Rural Livelihood (RERL) project, supported by the
Government of Nepal, Global Environment Facility (GEF) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (RERL 2016). At wider integrated scales, mini-grids provide energy for both domestic and micro-industrial energy needs, also enabling water pumping for domestic uses and improved irrigation.
National Learning and Exchange
Since the early 2000s, there has been systematic learning, exchange and study around WUMP and MUS innovation at national levels through ‘learning alliances’. Initially supported by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and iDE, MUS also became one of the themes of the biannual international seminars of the Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust (FMIST), organized in 2015, 2017 and 2019. State-of-the-art studies were regularly compiled by iDE and IWMI (Mikhail and Yoder 2008); Rockefeller Foundation, IWMI and IRC (Basnet and van Koppen 2011); and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Helvetas and the European Union in the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) tool (Egloff et al.
2015). The challenges and opportunities for further national institutionalization of MUS were analyzed by IWMI, FMIST and iDE for the BRACED project (Clement et al. 2019). The most rigorous research on MUS in Nepal was conducted as part of a postdoctoral degree (PhD) program for Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), USA, on the common prevalence of de facto multiple uses (GC et al. 2019); commercialization of smallholder farming linked to MUS (GC and Hall 2020); productive uses as a contributing factor to the sustainability of rural water systems (GC et al. 2021a); and approaches to advance MUS in Nepal (GC et al. 2021b).
This learning involved many sectors: irrigation, water supply, local government, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, energy, and national planning.
Affordable water technologies were broad including, for example, hydrams (which use the gravity energy of flowing streams to lift a smaller amount of water to a greater height) and biogas (which also requires water as one of the inputs; it combats indoor air pollution and prevents deforestation for the creation of woodstoves for cooking).6 MUS was formalized in the block grant guidelines of the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads, under the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Government. In 2010, the then Ministry of Population and Environment issued a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). MUS is recognized as one of the climate-smart technologies in the local-level Local Adaptation Plans of Action (LAPAs), which are being planned in consultation with local stakeholders. This Ministry of Population and Environment also hosted the International MUS Workshop in 2016, in collaboration
5 https://renewable-world.org
6 https://renewable-world.org
